strace cat

man cat

i see you’re replying to the joke comments but ignoring the ones posted many hours earlier which helpfully explain what is wrong with the premise of your post (eg, this and this and this).

640B ought to be enough for anybody

MICROS~1

It is risky to carry encrypted devices across the border which you are not prepared to give them the passwords to.

In most cases they won’t ask you to decrypt anything, but they do sometimes randomly and when they do if you refuse then you can/will be denied entry and/or they’ll keep the device(s) indefinitely.

One approach to avoid this problem is to create an encrypted disk image (your operating system hopefully comes with a program to do this, you shouldn’t need to install anything) and then store it online somewhere and then download it after you’ve crossed the border. Read about how to pick a strong yet memorable passphrase.

It was reported last year that the US was going to start requiring that you disclose all of your social media accounts used in the previous five years, but that did not actually go into effect in December as it had been announced that it would. Something along those lines could still happen later this year though: Here and here are articles from March and May of this year about it.

The Bullshit thing about these phishing email tests is if you look at the actual headers they are allowed past the server level spam filters and in a back door to your email address. They would never pass the basic filters.

Being able to bypass the automated filtering is entirely logical, because they are testing and training humans and not the spam filters.

They are not even training you for reality.

They are training you to be the next line of defense after the automated filters are defeated. Which is, obviously, a thing which does happen frequently - eg, in every real phishing attack which succeeds.

These “online safety” companies create this baloney meat training so that your IT manager can say they are doing something, and your company can report compliance with whatever code they are responsible to, so they can be insured.

There is some truth to that, but on the other hand at any large enough organization many people will still fail these tests. And, even if you’re sure that you’re too smart for them, don’t you think that being periodically subjected to these tests probably does actually make some people a bit more cautious?

red alert klaxons, or something else from a star trek sound bank like this

AUR is bad, actually

i would be surprised if it is true that “If you don’t remove that it shows your personal account to anyone who receives it so that they can chat directly with you”, and a search just now didn’t find anything to substantiate that.

It’s a very recent change

is it though? if so, how do you actually find out the profile name from the si parameter?

obviously tracking parameters from URLs should be removed in any case, but afaict only google can use this to find which user generated the link.

after some more reading i found conflicting reports but i think this might actually be happening; apparently it is only visible in the app?

Their certificate was revoked (by their certificate authority, Actalis, part of the Aruba Group) on July 6. Presumably the CA was pressured to revoke it by the Italian and/or US government, and they will get a new certificate from someone else soon.

There is a hexbear thread here about it; afaict there doesn’t appear to yet be any reporting about it. But in the CRL you can see it was revoked July 6:

$ curl -s http://crl15.actalis.it/Repository/tls-subca-rsa-dv-2025/getLastCRL | openssl crl -noout -text |grep -A 4 02295E6BB25717C4652321F4ED9D2B29
    Serial Number: 02295E6BB25717C4652321F4ED9D2B29
        Revocation Date: Jul  6 13:54:09 2026 GMT
        CRL entry extensions:
            X509v3 CRL Reason Code: 
                Privilege Withdrawn

The reason “Privilege Withdrawn” means it was the CA’s decision rather than their own.

Because certificate revocation has never worked very well, many people can still access it (until their browser fetches the certificate revocation list, or checks OCSP, does some newfangled proprietary other thing i don’t understand…).

But why rewrite programs that existed for decades and have proven their stability and safety? Rewriting them to Rust won’t make them safer, it will just introduce the kind of issues original versions have got fixed long ago.

Of course rewriting them will introduce some new issues, but it will also eliminate classes of bugs from which there are definitely still a great many in old “stable” C code (bugs which are now being discovered and will presumably continue to be discovered at a much faster pace due to LLMs).

The whole project is about abolishing GPL. And Rust is just an excuse.

I don’t think it is just an excuse; I believe that improving security is also a goal… but removing GPL code is clearly also part of their motivation :(

No, it is not a good time. A project like Ubuntu should now be in freeze as they had about 3 months before release

This bug was reported (and resolved by rolling back to the GNU coreutils version of cp) on June 30, a little over 15 weeks prior to the scheduled release date.

Which distros have a feature freeze that far in advance?

Ubuntu hasn’t even scheduled theirs for this release yet; if you edit that url to look at previous releases’ schedules you can see their feature freeze and debian import freezes are typically about 2 months prior to release. (See here for descriptions of all of the different types of freezes…)

What an absolute shitshow

I’d say the month of June is actually a good time to be breaking and fixing things in a release that is due to come out in (checks notes) October.

What? Is there some explanation missing here?

whoosh